The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials in or Near Government Buildings

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials in or Near Government
Buildings

At 04:07 AM 5/11/97 +0200, M. Froomkin wrote:
>[... ugly stuff about "soft targets"]
>
>It ill behooves participants in a democracy to either advocate or even
>tolerate or even cluck sympathetically at mass murder for political ends. 
>This way lies Bosnia.

Tim is neither a democrat nor a participant in a democracy.  Note that all
the parties involved in the current Balkans war are governments (or claim to
be). 

Most of the violence in interactions between people and governments is on the
government side.  The U.S. government and others have been committing mass
murder for years.  Supporters of those governments thus support mass murder
for "political ends."

Governments have murdered 170 million people since 1900.  My
back-of-the-envelope estimate is that the civilians of the world have only
murdered about 20 million people in the same period of time.  Quite a
disparity.

The U.S. government and its subsidiaries (for example) annually kill hundreds
of people in carrying out the "war" on the unlicensed retailing of
pharmaceuticals.  The U.S. was convicted of war crimes in the International
Court of Justice in the Hague in the late 80's for dropping air-sown mines in
one of Nicaragua's harbors.  The U.S. practices the mass bombing of civilian
populations in wartime which causes a very great loss of innocent life.  Many
of the other governments of the world are worse.

The principle of estoppel would seem to logically preclude the world's
governments from arguing that their mass murders are OK but those committed
by amateurs (which kill many fewer people) aren't.

Again, and in general, some of the readers of this and other recent threads
on cypherpunks need some reading lessons (present company excepted).  Tim May
has not advocated blowing things up (though such advocacy remains legal).  He
has not advocated that cypherpunks blow things up.  He has not advocated that
Timothy McVeigh blow things up.  He has not even said that blowing things up
is a hip and happening way to raise the average IQ and moral level of the
surviving population.  

He has merely said that if OTHER PEOPLE blow certain things up he understands
their actions and that in the case of certain targets he would not shed a
tear.  He also predicted that people will be blowing things up in the future
(with which prediction, even the U.S. government agrees).

In any case, cypherpunks' orientation is towards the mathematics of
cryptography rather than towards chemical engineering.

DCF

"If the Red Queen blows things up it's a virtue.  If you blow thgings up it's
a vice." -- The Mad Hatter.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5

iQCVAgUBM3eIZoVO4r4sgSPhAQEi7gP+K0cDa/6qXtB8FPfmn9Evk2LRxV9qNiQ+
AIjCagp/MeV2WnHKkEcTrX+geZxDOAhDn8XdHopf6sozI2CZlZYxsEqPFOBb0gjx
wnpN/j6zjWxFkTdBO+UGrNPK4+G9+hkm1BPjaJSbsgHT2UrLSsK0YUzu1dW4EQtH
gPKh8/2baSM=
=2y+Y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

DF:
>
>Most of the violence in interactions between people and governments is on the
>government side.  The U.S. government and others have been committing mass
>murder for years.  Supporters of those governments thus support mass murder
>for "political ends."
>
>Governments have murdered 170 million people since 1900.  My
>back-of-the-envelope estimate is that the civilians of the world have only
>murdered about 20 million people in the same period of time.  Quite a
>disparity.

therefore, it is ok for civilians to murder government officials, 
or engage in any other damaging conduct.
CED (cypherpunk QED) endorsed by TCM, Bell, etc. ad nauseum

"Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com> writes:
> therefore, it is ok for civilians to murder government officials,
Yes.
> CED (cypherpunk QED) endorsed by TCM, Bell, etc. ad nauseum
And myself.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

On Mon, May 12, 1997 at 05:15:24PM -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>
>Tim is neither a democrat nor a participant in a democracy.  Note that all
>the parties involved in the current Balkans war are governments (or claim to
>be). 
>
>Most of the violence in interactions between people and governments is on the
>government side.  The U.S. government and others have been committing mass
>murder for years.  Supporters of those governments thus support mass murder
>for "political ends."
>
>Governments have murdered 170 million people since 1900.  My
>back-of-the-envelope estimate is that the civilians of the world have only
>murdered about 20 million people in the same period of time.  Quite a
>disparity.

Your estimate seems high to me.  But it is meaningless, in any case.

First of all, it neglects to consider that governments may have 
prevented more murders than they caused.  This is unknowable, since 
we don't have any worthwhile control cases.  (I suppose we
might examine a state of anarchic chaos (eg Rawanda) and compare the 
percentage of murders...but such cases are symptoms of other human 
ills, and cannot be used as a meaningful comparison, I believe.)

Second, such cases of civil breakdown aside, all humans, for now and
for the conceivable future, live within the context of some kind of
government.  The option of non-government simply doesn't exist.  The 
issue is how can governments be improved.

Third, murders caused by governments can't really be separated from
murders caused by individuals.  That is, in many cases deciding
whether a murder is a personal action or a government action is
impossible. 


Fourth, it's fashionable in these circles to paint all governments
with the same brush, but in fact, some are much better than others.  
But it only takes one bad one to start a war.  Furthermore, human 
motivations are complex and irrational, so wars are started for 
essentially insane reasons.  This is a human problem, not a problem 
of government.

>The U.S. government and its subsidiaries (for example) annually kill hundreds
>of people in carrying out the "war" on the unlicensed retailing of
>pharmaceuticals.  The U.S. was convicted of war crimes in the International
>Court of Justice in the Hague in the late 80's for dropping air-sown mines in
>one of Nicaragua's harbors.  The U.S. practices the mass bombing of civilian
>populations in wartime which causes a very great loss of innocent life.  Many
>of the other governments of the world are worse.
>
>The principle of estoppel would seem to logically preclude the world's
>governments from arguing that their mass murders are OK but those committed
>by amateurs (which kill many fewer people) aren't.

That inconsistency doesn't bother Tim.  To quote him:

"Some innocents died, but, hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all that."

>Again, and in general, some of the readers of this and other recent threads
>on cypherpunks need some reading lessons (present company excepted).  Tim May
>has not advocated blowing things up (though such advocacy remains legal).  He
>has not advocated that cypherpunks blow things up.  He has not advocated that
>Timothy McVeigh blow things up.  He has not even said that blowing things up
>is a hip and happening way to raise the average IQ and moral level of the
>surviving population.
>
>He has merely said that if OTHER PEOPLE blow certain things up he understands
>their actions and that in the case of certain targets he would not shed a
>tear.  He also predicted that people will be blowing things up in the future
>(with which prediction, even the U.S. government agrees).

He said:

"Every day that passes, I'm more convinced that McVeigh did the right 
thing." 

This is a lot stronger than saying that he "understands" McVeigh.

[Parenthetically, it is absolutely amazing to me that he and
practically everyone on this list just seems to assume McVeigh is
guilty...do they know something I don't?]

And Tim did *explictly advocate* the assasination of government
officials:

"Chiles and his co-conspirators should be shot for high crimes against
the Constitution.  After Clinton, Freeh, Kerrey, and the other
traitors."

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

At 6:34 PM -0800 5/13/97, Kent Crispin wrote:

>First of all, it neglects to consider that governments may have
>prevented more murders than they caused.  This is unknowable, since
>we don't have any worthwhile control cases.  (I suppose we
>might examine a state of anarchic chaos (eg Rawanda) and compare the
>percentage of murders...but such cases are symptoms of other human
>ills, and cannot be used as a meaningful comparison, I believe.)

Rwanda (or Ruwanda, or...) is a _very_ poor example to pick, as this was
not any kind of anarchy such as any of us have ever advocated. Rather,
Rwanda was a near-textbook example of one tribal faction (Hutus or Tutsis)
coming to power and inititiating a pogrom against the rival faction (Tutsis
or Hutus).

Calling this an "anarchy" is comparable to calling the pogrom by the Third
Reich against Jews, gypsies, cripples, and others an example of anarchy.

The rest of Kent's analysis is not worth my time to read and comment upon.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Tue, May 13, 1997 at 08:21:13PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> At 6:34 PM -0800 5/13/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> >First of all, it neglects to consider that governments may have
> >prevented more murders than they caused.  This is unknowable, since
> >we don't have any worthwhile control cases.  (I suppose we
> >might examine a state of anarchic chaos (eg Rawanda) and compare the
> >percentage of murders...but such cases are symptoms of other human
> >ills, and cannot be used as a meaningful comparison, I believe.)
> 
> Rwanda (or Ruwanda, or...) is a _very_ poor example to pick, as this was
> not any kind of anarchy such as any of us have ever advocated. Rather,
> Rwanda was a near-textbook example of one tribal faction (Hutus or Tutsis)
> coming to power and inititiating a pogrom against the rival faction (Tutsis
> or Hutus).
> 
> Calling this an "anarchy" is comparable to calling the pogrom by the Third
> Reich against Jews, gypsies, cripples, and others an example of anarchy.

Nonsense.

"anarchy n. the absence of government or control, resulting in 
lawlessness. 2. disorder, confusion" -- Oxford American Dictionary

Which part of that would you say didn't apply to Rwanda?  

In fact, the correlation between anarchy and war is very strong, for
obvious reasons.  Perhaps that is why most intelligent people don't
consider anarchy a desirable state of affairs. 

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

> > Calling this an "anarchy" is comparable to calling the pogrom by the Third
> > Reich against Jews, gypsies, cripples, and others an example of anarchy.
> 
> Nonsense.

No, there is a distinct and marked difference between the absence of 
government and the presence of lots of different governments, the reason 
for war in Rwanda is because there are a number of rival factions all 
competing to gain power, a true anarchy has no government whatsoever.
Rwanda is an example of undecided government, not no government.

 
> "anarchy n. the absence of government or control, resulting in 
> lawlessness. 2. disorder, confusion" -- Oxford American Dictionary
> 
> Which part of that would you say didn't apply to Rwanda?  

The entire first definition, there is no absense of government in Rwanda, 
merely a number of different prospective government.

Also, the definition of anarchy is flawed in that it suggests that the 
word refers to the lack of government leading to lawlessness, my 
definition, and I would imagine the definition of most members of this 
list, is that anarchy is the absense of government period. Just because 
the law we refer to doesn`t suit you does not mean it is not a valid system.

> In fact, the correlation between anarchy and war is very strong, for
> obvious reasons.  Perhaps that is why most intelligent people don't
> consider anarchy a desirable state of affairs. 

Cite?

The correlation between your definition of anarchy and war is obvious, if 
you define anarchy as "A lack of government leading to lawlessness" you 
are obviously going to see a correlation between this and lawlessness!
I could counter argue that the correlation between government and war is 
irrefutably stronger but then I would be playing your little game, and I 
don`t want to get drawn into that.

Your comment that most intelligent people consider that anarchy is not a 
desirable state of affairs does not even deserve comment, democratic 
arguments for or against anarchy are completely irrelevant and futile.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 04:03:57PM +0000, Paul Bradley wrote:

>>> Calling this an "anarchy" is comparable to calling the pogrom by the Third
>>> Reich against Jews, gypsies, cripples, and others an example of anarchy.
>> 
>> Nonsense.
> 
> No, there is a distinct and marked difference between the absence of 
> government and the presence of lots of different governments, the reason 
> for war in Rwanda is because there are a number of rival factions all 
> competing to gain power, a true anarchy has no government whatsoever.
> Rwanda is an example of undecided government, not no government.

Roving bands of thugs are not the same as an "undecided government".

>> "anarchy n. the absence of government or control, resulting in 
>> lawlessness. 2. disorder, confusion" -- Oxford American Dictionary
>> 
>> Which part of that would you say didn't apply to Rwanda?  
> 
> The entire first definition, there is no absense of government in Rwanda, 
> merely a number of different prospective government.

Your sentence is an oxymoron, a self contradiction.  A "number of
different prospective governments" are *not* the same as "a
government".  Claiming to be a government is not the same as being a
government. 

> Also, the definition of anarchy is flawed in that it suggests that the 
> word refers to the lack of government leading to lawlessness, my 
> definition, and I would imagine the definition of most members of this 
> list, is that anarchy is the absense of government period. Just because 
> the law we refer to doesn`t suit you does not mean it is not a valid system.

You are free to use the word anarchy to refer to asparagus if you 
wish.  However, the meaning I used is *the* common English meaning.  

> > In fact, the correlation between anarchy and war is very strong, for
> > obvious reasons.  Perhaps that is why most intelligent people don't
> > consider anarchy a desirable state of affairs. 
> 
> Cite?

Cite what? The obvious correlation that you agree to below? Or do you
think I need to do find a study that shows that intelligent people
don't consider an anarchical situation such as the Rwandan collapse a
desirable situation?

> The correlation between your definition of anarchy and war is obvious, if 
> you define anarchy as "A lack of government leading to lawlessness" you 
> are obviously going to see a correlation between this and lawlessness!

That's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition, as described in a
standard, reputable dictionary.  I realize that you have your own
private definition of the term, that you share with your friends and
an esoteric community.  However, I am not a member of that community, 
so I use the standard meaning.

> I could counter argue that the correlation between government and war is 
> irrefutably stronger but then I would be playing your little game, and I 
> don`t want to get drawn into that.

Of course there is a correlation between government and war.  There is
a correlation between people and war, between use of guns and war (so
clearly we could eliminate war by eliminating guns), economics and
war, etc etc.  Correlation is not causation. 

> Your comment that most intelligent people consider that anarchy is not a 
> desirable state of affairs does not even deserve comment, democratic 
> arguments for or against anarchy are completely irrelevant and futile.

Gosh, I thought you weren't going to comment...

Of course, democratic arguments for or against dictatorship are 
completely irrelevant and futile, as well.  Just out of curiosity, 
what the heck is a "democratic argument", anyway?

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

>> > That's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition, as described in a
>> > standard, reputable dictionary.  I realize that you have your own 
>> > private definition of the term, that you share with your friends and 
>> > an esoteric community.  

Sigh.  Calling something "*the* definition" of anarchy, when it's not
the definition anarchists use, doesn't cut it.  I realize that 
statists have convinced lots of people that "anarchy" means
"a bunch of bomb-throwing terrorists are going to run down the street
and kill your mama", but that's because they want to be in charge -
or at least have SOMEBODY be in charge, since they don't trust people
to act civilized without rulers who'll kill them if they don't behave. 

Whether you think anarchism *will* lead to bomb-throwing terrorists,
or in general whether it's a good or bad idea, is a separate argument.
But anarchists _ought_ to own the definition.  (Now, if you want to
split the anarchists by bringing up the propertarian vs. non-propertarian
issue and discuss whether "no property" is part of the definition
of anarchy or only a popular anarchist view, you'll end up with chaos (:-)
Around here you'll find mostly arachno-capitalists who think that
property is just fine, though not everyone agrees.
Over on soc.culture.anarchism, you'll find a lot more non-propertarians,
and an on-going squabble about Libertarianism.

One of your more interesting comments was on whether you can separate
the concepts of society and government - a fairly common view of 
government is that it needs to have a monopoly on the use of force to
preserve order, and therefore needs to have tax funding to exist,
and since you've got it around anyway you might as well use it for
things that are easiest to do in a centralized manner, and to do
things that require either social cooperation or lots of money;
a society like that will find government intertwined in its civil affairs,
and people will get out of the habit of organizing their own actions
without using government as a focus.  Other societies have used 
religious organizations to perform many of the same social functions -
if everybody's getting together weekly anyway, might as well talk about
the problems that have been going on, and raise the money needed to
feed the poor and patch the meetinghouse roof.  And other societies
have just done these things on a more individual basis, especially
in sparsely populated areas where there aren't outside invaders.
Of course, now that governments have taken over most of the world,
it's hard to find a place without outside invaders...

But people are still going to teach their kids what they need,
and people are still going to keep most of their agreements with
their neighbors, and they're still going to help each other resolve
arguments about the agreements that weren't kept, whether that
resolution is done by an armed posse, or by the offender's family
paying off the obligation in cattle, or by shunning people until they
do the right thing, or refusing to give credit to known deadbeats,
or whatever.  Government's only one choice.

#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp
#     (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies.  Thanks.)

> > No, there is a distinct and marked difference between the absence of 
> > government and the presence of lots of different governments, the reason 
> > for war in Rwanda is because there are a number of rival factions all 
> > competing to gain power, a true anarchy has no government whatsoever.
> > Rwanda is an example of undecided government, not no government.
> 
> Roving bands of thugs are not the same as an "undecided government".

Roving bands of thugs are called LEAs.

Flippant comments aside your comment above is almost entirely without 
substance, and what little substance it does have is simply not true.
Roving bands of thugs are, of course, the same as undecided government, 
any faction competing for power will use unethical means to obtain it, as 
the desire to gain power is immoral in itself.

> >> "anarchy n. the absence of government or control, resulting in 
> >> lawlessness. 2. disorder, confusion" -- Oxford American Dictionary
> >> 
> >> Which part of that would you say didn't apply to Rwanda?  
> > 
> > The entire first definition, there is no absense of government in Rwanda, 
> > merely a number of different prospective government.
> 
> Your sentence is an oxymoron, a self contradiction.  A "number of
> different prospective governments" are *not* the same as "a
> government".  Claiming to be a government is not the same as being a
> government. 

Quite so, but this is not my point, my point is that Rwanda is not an 
anarchy in the normal sense, it is chaos. This might be a dictionary 
definition that does not make it a real definition, I will not argue 
semantics with you anyway, you know what I mean by anarchy, if it makes 
you happy read "absence of any government" for anarchy, anarchy is not 
chaos, regardless of what the dictionary might say.

> > Also, the definition of anarchy is flawed in that it suggests that the 
> > word refers to the lack of government leading to lawlessness, my 
> > definition, and I would imagine the definition of most members of this 
> > list, is that anarchy is the absense of government period. Just because 
> > the law we refer to doesn`t suit you does not mean it is not a valid system.
> 
> You are free to use the word anarchy to refer to asparagus if you 
> wish.  However, the meaning I used is *the* common English meaning.  

Not at all, the original meaning is derived from the latin, "an-archy", 
the absence of an "arch" where arch is taken to mean a higher level, eg. 
a government.

The common meaning is, as you say, used to refer to chaos and lawless 
disorder, this has developed in much the same way as for example the word 
"gay" once refered to being happy, and is now more commonly used to mean 
homosexual.

Your bastardised definition is wrong, plain and simple, you know what I 
mean by anarchy, it`s irrelevant really anyway, we are arguing about 
whether anarchic society can be stable, rather than the specific meaning 
of the word anarchy.

> > > In fact, the correlation between anarchy and war is very strong, for
> > > obvious reasons.  Perhaps that is why most intelligent people don't
> > > consider anarchy a desirable state of affairs. 
> > 
> > Cite?
> 
> Cite what? The obvious correlation that you agree to below? Or do you
> think I need to do find a study that shows that intelligent people
> don't consider an anarchical situation such as the Rwandan collapse a
> desirable situation?

No cite examples of the correlation between my definition of anarchy, ie. 
no government, and war.

> > The correlation between your definition of anarchy and war is obvious, if 
> > you define anarchy as "A lack of government leading to lawlessness" you 
> > are obviously going to see a correlation between this and lawlessness!
> 
> That's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition, as described in a
> standard, reputable dictionary.  I realize that you have your own
> private definition of the term, that you share with your friends and
> an esoteric community.  However, I am not a member of that community, 
> so I use the standard meaning.

No, you use an incorrect meaning that has developed due to commonly held 
misconceptions about the "need" for government. 

Anyway, whether your definition is the correct one or not, the point is 
if you define anarchy as lack of government leading to lawlesness you 
will clearly see a link between this and lawlessness! - you cannot just 
define your views into the meaning of a word!

> > I could counter argue that the correlation between government and war is 
> > irrefutably stronger but then I would be playing your little game, and I 
> > don`t want to get drawn into that.
> 
> Of course there is a correlation between government and war.  There is
> a correlation between people and war, between use of guns and war (so
> clearly we could eliminate war by eliminating guns), economics and
> war, etc etc.  Correlation is not causation. 

Of course, but this is all beside the point, the evil of government is 
not that it kills or makes war, it is that it infringes the rights of 
citizens by assuming a position of superiority over them.


> > Your comment that most intelligent people consider that anarchy is not a 
> > desirable state of affairs does not even deserve comment, democratic 
> > arguments for or against anarchy are completely irrelevant and futile.
> 
> Gosh, I thought you weren't going to comment...

I didn`t comment, I made an observation about the general case and not 
your specific statement.

> Of course, democratic arguments for or against dictatorship are 
> completely irrelevant and futile, as well.  Just out of curiosity, 
> what the heck is a "democratic argument", anyway?

I would say you attempt to justify your position that anarchy is not 
desirable by stating that most intelligent people feel the same is a 
democratic argument.

This is clearly a democratic argument as it assumes that an idea without 
merit suddenly assumes merit if it is supported by a large proportion of 
the population or some subset thereof.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

On Thu, May 15, 1997 at 09:10:39PM -0700, Bill Stewart wrote:
> >> > That's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition, as described in a
> >> > standard, reputable dictionary.  I realize that you have your own 
> >> > private definition of the term, that you share with your friends and 
> >> > an esoteric community.  
> 
> Sigh.  Calling something "*the* definition" of anarchy, when it's not
> the definition anarchists use, doesn't cut it.  I realize that 
> statists have convinced lots of people that "anarchy" means
> "a bunch of bomb-throwing terrorists are going to run down the street
> and kill your mama", but that's because they want to be in charge -
> or at least have SOMEBODY be in charge, since they don't trust people
> to act civilized without rulers who'll kill them if they don't behave. 
> 
> Whether you think anarchism *will* lead to bomb-throwing terrorists,
> or in general whether it's a good or bad idea, is a separate argument.
> But anarchists _ought_ to own the definition.

I don't think so.  The fact is, of course, there are many definitions
for the word.  The definition I used might be called the "literary"
meaning, like the "anarchist" in the Conrad novel that always carries
a bomb.  It is a perfectly legitimate meaning, more common than the
specialist meanings.  But, having apparently stired up a hornets nest 
with a gentle tweak, I'll say no more about it, and be more careful 
around the hornets.

[...]
> One of your more interesting comments was on whether you can separate
> the concepts of society and government - a fairly common view of 
> government is that it needs to have a monopoly on the use of force to
> preserve order, and therefore needs to have tax funding to exist,
> and since you've got it around anyway you might as well use it for
> things that are easiest to do in a centralized manner, and to do
> things that require either social cooperation or lots of money;
> a society like that will find government intertwined in its civil affairs,
> and people will get out of the habit of organizing their own actions
> without using government as a focus.  Other societies have used 
> religious organizations to perform many of the same social functions -
> if everybody's getting together weekly anyway, might as well talk about
> the problems that have been going on, and raise the money needed to
> feed the poor and patch the meetinghouse roof.  And other societies
> have just done these things on a more individual basis, especially
> in sparsely populated areas where there aren't outside invaders.
> Of course, now that governments have taken over most of the world,
> it's hard to find a place without outside invaders...
> 
> But people are still going to teach their kids what they need,
> and people are still going to keep most of their agreements with
> their neighbors, and they're still going to help each other resolve
> arguments about the agreements that weren't kept, whether that
> resolution is done by an armed posse, or by the offender's family
> paying off the obligation in cattle, or by shunning people until they
> do the right thing, or refusing to give credit to known deadbeats,
> or whatever.  Government's only one choice.

It seems to me that government is the only choice when the population
gets "large" -- that is, when an individual deals with substantial
numbers of strangers.  You don't just deal with neighbors and people
you know; you have to know some rules, and you have to be fairly
confident that strangers will follow them as well.  In particular, 
you need to be confident that strangers won't be violent.

Some years ago a woman criminal law judge from the Soviet Union wrote
an interesting book about the Soviet criminal justice system.  Your
first thought might be to just laugh at the thought, but Soviet Russia
had murderers, rapists, thieves, con men -- in short, criminals -- and
they had to be dealt with.  Many of the issues are the same wherever
you are -- what was the crime? What is the evidence? Who is telling
the truth? What are the laws and precedents that apply?  What is the 
appropriate punishment?

Criminal acts are a fact of life in every society.  In a stable,
relatively homogeneous society, I believe, a reasonable justice system
would always evolve, and that system would have a monopoly on
violence.  The population as a whole has a shared idea of what is just
and what is not, and the justice system actually provides it.  This
is, I believe, essentially independent of the political system. 

But back to "government" and "society" -- it's not that I think the
concepts aren't distinct -- like "anarchy", they are just words, you
make or use definitions.  What I was getting at was the reality of
things -- there isn't any clear dividing line where "society" leaves
off and "government" begins.  Leaves are a distinguishable part of a
tree; different kinds of trees have different kinds of leaves; but all
trees have leaves of some form or another, and if you remove the
leaves the tree will die.  And there is no point at which you say the 
tree ends where the leaf begins.

A cop has the authority to use force, but that cop drinks the same
beer we do, watches TV, reads the newspaper, etc; and his behavior,
including his use of force, is conditioned by all that social
experience.  At higher levels of government -- rich people hobnob with
congresspeople, presidents, and supreme court justices.  Businesses
have contracts to supply the US military.  Universities have contracts
to run government labs.  There are elections, initiatives, open
committee meetings.  All people who are elected or work for the 
government consume groceries and toilet paper.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

kent@songbird.com said:

> > The correlation between your definition of anarchy and war is obvious,
> > if you define anarchy as "A lack of government leading to lawlessness"
> > you are obviously going to see a correlation between this and
> > lawlessness!
>
> That's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition, as described in a
> standard, reputable dictionary.  I realize that you have your own private
> definition of the term, that you share with your friends and an esoteric
> community.  However, I am not a member of that community, so I use the
> standard meaning.

How pedantic.  Webster's New World Dictionary (also reputable, I might add),
has THIS to say about "Anarchy":

  anarchy n. [Gr. an- without + archos, leader] 1. the absence of government
  2. political disorder and violence 3. disorder; confusion

Note the etymology.  Taken to its roots, the word simply means "no leader".

It also says:

  anarchism n. [see anarchy] 1. the theory that all organized government is
  repressive and undesirable 2. resistance to all government

Note the COMPLETE lack of "chaos" or "disorder" in this definition.  Being 
an anarchist, therefore, does NOT imply that one supports chaos and 
disorder.

rgds-- TA  (tallard@frb.gov)
I don't speak for the Federal Reserve Board, it doesn't speak for me.
pgp fingerprint: 10 49 F5 24 F1 D9 A7 D6  DE 14 25 C8 C0 E2 57 9D

At 2:22 PM -0700 5/14/97, Tim May wrote:
>The meaning of anarchy, and how it differs from chaos and random killings,
>has been discussed many times. David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom"
>is a good book to start with. Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" also
>discusses how lawlessness is not at all a necessary part of "no rulers"

For anarchy in a fictional setting I recommend two books by Ursula K.
LeGuin.  "The Dispossessed" and "Always Coming Home".

In a lecture several years ago in San Francisco, she said of the two books
that in "The Dispossessed" I set out to describe an anarchy.  In "Always
Coming Home" I just let it happen.

BTW - When I read "Always Coming Home", I was over half-way thru the book
before I had any idea of what it was about.  Be prepared for a long period
of confusion as to why you are reading it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | God could make the world   | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | in six days because he did | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | not have an installed base.| Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

On Thu, 15 May 1997, Bill Frantz wrote:

> At 2:22 PM -0700 5/14/97, Tim May wrote:
> >The meaning of anarchy, and how it differs from chaos and random killings,
> >has been discussed many times. David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom"
> >is a good book to start with. Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" also
> >discusses how lawlessness is not at all a necessary part of "no rulers"
> 
> For anarchy in a fictional setting I recommend two books by Ursula K.
> LeGuin.  "The Dispossessed" and "Always Coming Home".
> 
> In a lecture several years ago in San Francisco, she said of the two books
> that in "The Dispossessed" I set out to describe an anarchy.  In "Always
> Coming Home" I just let it happen.
> 
etc...

I would also recommend the classic Heinlein work,
"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".  As an example of self-organizing
anarchy/panarchy and general libertarian views it has no equal in
fiction.  At this point Heinlein was still at the top of his game.

Very enjoyable and thought provoking read.

Of course, most of you have probably already read it.

I suppose somebody will start talking about Rand here, but I found
her writing a little too strident.

jburnes

At 11:07 AM -0800 5/14/97, Tom Allard wrote:

>How pedantic.  Webster's New World Dictionary (also reputable, I might add),
>has THIS to say about "Anarchy":
>
>  anarchy n. [Gr. an- without + archos, leader] 1. the absence of government
>  2. political disorder and violence 3. disorder; confusion
>
>Note the etymology.  Taken to its roots, the word simply means "no leader".

Tom is exactly right. Citing dictionary definitions without proper
context--and the context of "anarchy" and "anarcho-capitalism" on this of
_all_ lists is quite important--is just plain pedantry. Dictionaries are
not encyclopedias, and rarely provide nuanced definitions. In this case,
the meaning of "anarchy" is of course overloaded with various connotations.

(I'm reminded, too, of hackneyed Toastmasters-type speeches which seem to
always begin with an obligatory Webster's quote. "Websters defines virtue
as ....")

The meaning of anarchy, and how it differs from chaos and random killings,
has been discussed many times. David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom"
is a good book to start with. Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" also
discusses how lawlessness is not at all a necessary part of "no rulers"
(Hint: international trade generally involves "no ruler," given that
neither the United Nations nor the World Court have much power over such
things, and yet international trade has worked for several centuries, and
arguably for millenia, with good success.)

>It also says:
>
>  anarchism n. [see anarchy] 1. the theory that all organized government is
>  repressive and undesirable 2. resistance to all government
>
>Note the COMPLETE lack of "chaos" or "disorder" in this definition.  Being
>an anarchist, therefore, does NOT imply that one supports chaos and
>disorder.

And it's important to note that _many_, even _most_, aspects of Western
society are essentially anarchic. The books we read, the restaurants we
patronize, the clothes we wear...while the range of choices is constrained
by what the market offers, and by social norms, etc., there are no "rulers"
(or "tops," or "arches," hence, 'an archy," as Tom notes the etymology
above).

To see why this is important, let us imagine somelike Diane Feinstein
calling for laws about what books may be read, "to put an end to the chaos,
lawlessness, and disorder in the bookreading community." (Actually, this is
exactly the sort of law Feinstein, Goodlatte, and all the rest are almost
constantly proposing...the only thing that stops some of these proposals
from progressing is the black letter law of "Congress shall make no
law...," and even then these bozos try to find workarounds and exceptions.
This is one reason I have absolutely no faith that legislation can secure
basic rights.)

As for Kent Crispin's remark that he chooses not to use the "esoteric"
definition of anarchy that the anarchist community, and economists
(actually), and others use, and prefers his "Toastmaster's Club" hoary
recitation of a simple dictionary definition, well, this is why I'm
becoming convinced that "Kent Crispin" is just a new identity David
Sternlight has adopted.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 03:07:43PM -0400, Tom Allard wrote:
> kent@songbird.com said:
> 
> > > The correlation between your definition of anarchy and war is obvious,
> > > if you define anarchy as "A lack of government leading to lawlessness"
> > > you are obviously going to see a correlation between this and
> > > lawlessness!
> >
> > That's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition, as described in a
> > standard, reputable dictionary.  I realize that you have your own private
> > definition of the term, that you share with your friends and an esoteric
> > community.  However, I am not a member of that community, so I use the
> > standard meaning.
> 
> How pedantic.  Webster's New World Dictionary (also reputable, I might add),
> has THIS to say about "Anarchy":
> 
>   anarchy n. [Gr. an- without + archos, leader] 1. the absence of government
>   2. political disorder and violence 3. disorder; confusion
> 
> Note the etymology.  Taken to its roots, the word simply means "no leader".

Note the second definition.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>The topic at hand was "Do governments kill more than individuals?".
>Bringing Rawanda up as a counter-example to government and calling it an
>anarchy is kind of dishonest, don't you think?  

Kent should try and read up a little.  The slaughter in Rawanda started when
the government radio stations began broadcasting orders for tribal members to
come by and pick up their government-purchased machetes and get out there and
start hacking.  It was a classic government ordered slaughter.

Rawanda was small potatoes by historical standards, however.

For the actual numbers of the major government murders see

http://www.laissezfaire.org/pl6300.html

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT
by R.J. Rummel
(Transaction Books, 1994)

Contents: 

I. Background
The New Concept of Democide, 31.
Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth-Century Democide, 45. 

II. 128,168,000 Victims: The DekaMegaMurderers
61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State, 79.
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Anthill, 91.
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State, 111.
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regimes, 123. 

III. 19,178,000 Victims: The Lesser MegaMurderers
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military, 143.
2,035,000 Murdered: The Hell State: Cambodia Under the Khmer Rouge, 159.
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges, 209.
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State, 241.
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing, 297.
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State, 315.
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse, 339. 

IV 4,145,000 Victims: The Suspected MegaMurderers
1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea, 365.
1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico, 381.
1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia, 397. 

DCF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5

iQCVAgUBM3yFOIVO4r4sgSPhAQGeYgQAkM8K1NBqJj1GY+q7Snk+/e5gfwVwrhf0
YgFrGeBKTFmn74qk6pqXi2aGJ52Hf6iNbNJSAeqWnWIwrVT1ifRnwQv57gznnSj5
1FRsLhYd2XEIji2rTxS0+9dH2QPy1U2F2eWurq3E5NGqggqFRoZcaqsnKLTIELXS
RsoeCFwhIWc=
=7VGJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 9:10 PM -0700 5/15/97, Bill Stewart wrote:
>But people are still going to teach their kids what they need,
>and people are still going to keep most of their agreements with
>their neighbors, and they're still going to help each other resolve
>arguments about the agreements that weren't kept, whether that
>resolution is done by an armed posse, or by the offender's family
>paying off the obligation in cattle, or by shunning people until they
>do the right thing, or refusing to give credit to known deadbeats,
>or whatever...

Or by SYN/ ARP flooding.  :-)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | The Internet was designed  | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | to protect the free world  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

Kent wrote:
> >   anarchy n. [Gr. an- without + archos, leader] 1. the absence of government
> >   2. political disorder and violence 3. disorder; confusion
> > 
> > Note the etymology.  Taken to its roots, the word simply means "no leader".
> 
> Note the second definition.

So, in other words, you agree with Tim about your definition of Rawanda as 
an example of anarchy:

Tim wrote:
> Calling this an "anarchy" is comparable to calling the pogrom by the Third
> Reich against Jews, gypsies, cripples, and others an example of anarchy.

The topic at hand was "Do governments kill more than individuals?".
Bringing Rawanda up as a counter-example to government and calling it an
anarchy is kind of dishonest, don't you think?  In the context of THIS
discussion, "anarchy" can only be the first definition, "no government".
Rawanda is not an anarchy in the sense of "no government," it's simply an
anarchy in the sense that the government is in disorder.  One faction of
government is fighting for control of government over another.

We can tally up the deaths in Rawanda to those created by government.

rgds-- TA  (tallard@frb.gov)
I don't speak for the Federal Reserve Board, it doesn't speak for me.
pgp fingerprint: 10 49 F5 24 F1 D9 A7 D6  DE 14 25 C8 C0 E2 57 9D

On Fri, May 16, 1997 at 09:56:16AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
[...]
> No, what I find so irksome about Kent is his obdurate unwillingness to
> bother to learn whereof he speaks:

[.points of varying levels of bogosity deleted.]

> And so on.
> 
> I've taken to sometimes responding to him, but usually not. Nothing
> delights me more than seeing some long rambling criticism of us, and our
> work, and then deleting it.

You really need to get a life, Tim.

> Kent is just one of several folks who've discovered this list, share none
> of its core values, and seeks to disrupt it with innuendos, spam, insults,
> and disinformation.

<serious>
This is all false.  The relationship between my values and the values
of this list are very complex, but clearly there is some overlap.  And
disrupting this list is simply not a goal of mine -- it's very 
entertaining, and a fine collecting ground...
</serious>

> Kent, please go away.

What, and deprive you of all the above mentioned delight? 

> --Tim May
> 
> There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.

Are you referring to the lack of effective enforcement?

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

At 8:03 AM -0800 5/16/97, Duncan Frissell wrote:

>Kent should try and read up a little.  The slaughter in Rawanda started when
>the government radio stations began broadcasting orders for tribal members to
>come by and pick up their government-purchased machetes and get out there and
>start hacking.  It was a classic government ordered slaughter.
...

The problem I have with Kent is _not_ that he works for LLNL, and not even
that he has charitable things to say about mandated key recovery systems.
After all, others here on this list also work for the government (including
The Real Government (tm), the Federal Reserve). And so on.

No, what I find so irksome about Kent is his obdurate unwillingness to
bother to learn whereof he speaks:

- unawareness of the situation in Rwanda, though he cites it as an example
of why "anarchy leads to mass killings."

- he cites hackneyed Webster's definitions of "anarchy" to make some point,
then objects that others are relying too much on definitions when they
refute him.

- he claims remailer networks are insecure without apparently having
comprehended how chained remailers work and without apparently even
glancing at the 1981 Chaum paper or the followup papers on DC-Nets (which
discuss collusion sets in great detail).

- he proudly admits to not having looked at past archives, nor I presume at
the large file I generated a few years ago (Cyphernomicon), covering many
of the issues he keeps raising.

- he claims his flavor of "key recovery" is demanded by corporations, but
seems unwilling to then just let corporations do as they wish in this
regard (if corporations really want it, they'll get it...but not in the GAK
form the government is insisting it be in). He also cites key recovery as a
middle ground in the war on crypto, thus implying (counter to his claimed
support of voluntary systems) key recovery will not be voluntary.

(Speaking as an info-terrorist who sees strong crypto as a tool for
triggering the eventual collapse of governments and dispenser of justice to
the criminal rulers, I certainly won't be "volunteering" to use any key
recovery tools, leastwise none that put the key in any subpoenable
repository. Maybe key recovery with my lawyer, outside the U.S., but not in
any Netscape's Trusted Key Suppository.)

And so on.

I've taken to sometimes responding to him, but usually not. Nothing
delights me more than seeing some long rambling criticism of us, and our
work, and then deleting it.

Kent is just one of several folks who've discovered this list, share none
of its core values, and seeks to disrupt it with innuendos, spam, insults,
and disinformation.

Kent, please go away.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

ah, kent crispin is a man after my own heart. good work Kent,
keep at it, and hone your style, after many months you may
be able to create seething cascading flamewars with only a few
posts. (hee, hee) the idea is to find the hot button of your
opponent, and then push it endlessly. wheeeeeeee!!! cypherpunks
have a *lot* of hotbuttons, I can assure you.

keep up the good work, Kent, uh, if that is really your real
name (heh heh)

TCM
>
>- unawareness of the situation in Rwanda, though he cites it as an example
>of why "anarchy leads to mass killings."

history is a clear example of this. only an anarchist such as yourself
would contest such a blatently obvious fact. if you do argue against it,
you're clearly using some concept of "anarchy" not commonly understood.
but of course, that has always been what you are doing. here is a question
for you: are there any synonyms in the english language that come closer
to what you are advocating than "anarchy"? surely you can think of some.
but of course, the word "anarchy" was very deliberately chosen.

>
>- he cites hackneyed Webster's definitions of "anarchy" to make some point,
>then objects that others are relying too much on definitions when they
>refute him.

as others have noted, the "cypherpunk vocabulary" is a bit different
than that used by most english-speaking people. the cypherpunks have
their own vocabulary in which words like "democracy, anarchy, 
leadership" etc. become highly charged words with new meanings. a
complex culture.

anyone with more interest should see www.csn.net/~ldetweil, an amusing
site on the subject of "cypherpunk sociology" etc.

>- he proudly admits to not having looked at past archives, nor I presume at
>the large file I generated a few years ago (Cyphernomicon), covering many
>of the issues he keeps raising.

oh, the horror that he hasn't read every single post of yours and your
tedious and disorganized "faq". ahem, I credit you for putting in a lot
of time into the project, but perhaps you would get more bang for your
buck designing chips or whatever it was you used to do.  eeeks, that
came out sounding pretty horrible, please rest assured that if it sounded
offensive I didn't *mean* it that way!!! thanks for your understanding
and patience.

>(Speaking as an info-terrorist who sees strong crypto as a tool for
>triggering the eventual collapse of governments and dispenser of justice to
>the criminal rulers, I certainly won't be "volunteering" to use any key
>recovery tools, leastwise none that put the key in any subpoenable
>repository. Maybe key recovery with my lawyer, outside the U.S., but not in
>any Netscape's Trusted Key Suppository.)

question:

has there ever been a period in history that you cite as "anarchy" that
you would hold up as an example of what you are talking about?

if not, why is it that nobody has stumbled on it in the millenia of
human social systems?


>I've taken to sometimes responding to him, but usually not. Nothing
>delights me more than seeing some long rambling criticism of us, and our
>work, and then deleting it.

nothing delights me more in pushing hotbuttons or seeing a young
up-and-coming whippersnapper with a good taste for the same. beep, beep, BEEP

>Kent is just one of several folks who've discovered this list, share none
>of its core values, and seeks to disrupt it with innuendos, spam, insults,
>and disinformation.

a man after my own heart. kent, keep up the good work.

>Kent, please go away.
>

Tim, please go away.

Tim is one of several people who pretends to have started this list, 
brainwashes everyone with his core values, and seeks to mold it into
his own image with innuendos, camouflaged spam, insults, and 
disinformation.

Only one response is warranted 
to the cryptonarchists who claim that a nonviolent anarchy exists: 
"Death to Cryptoanarchists!"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Tom Allard writes:
> We can tally up the deaths in Rawanda to those created by
> government.

Oh, this is just charming.  People are still dying, and now you're
going to sit on the sidelines making tally marks for your pissing
contest.

You can't count up human lives and say ``this entity is more evil than
this entity.''  It doesn't work that way.  People are people,
regardless, and usually don't deserve that kind of premature
termination.

As for the running dictionary flame, by all means, piss on.  Perhaps
later, when you mature a little, discussion can get back to more
meaningful topics.
- -- 
Graham Hughes  http://A-abe.resnet.ucsb.edu/~graham/  MIME & PGP mail OK.
(define pgp-fingerprint "E9 B7 5F A0 F8 88 9E 1E  7C 62 D9 88 E1 03 29 5B")
(require 'stddisclaim)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBM3skbiqNPSINiVE5AQHzhwP6Ayxaxcea6e+Ss7C2cxRJWSXeHnNd5Eb7
UscbiGypghWUt5293FikqGWPHBorY3IKqMS+OYtvuJ/tjBG1n236SP35zLlWFaxb
V3QJ1AtU/3DSwKq6Alr4lLnMn/1QU+CkhgzpSDyIIwGYyPvGTpdOg/zg0TBrWv2e
uuhyJv7CrlQ=
=FjfL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> > We can tally up the deaths in Rawanda to those created by government.
>
> Oh, this is just charming.  People are still dying, and now you're going
> to sit on the sidelines making tally marks for your pissing contest.

I didn't start this discussion.  But the question remains... are we better
with or without governments.  If you argue that we need gov't for safety,
it seems valid to ask under which system will have less killing.  It seems
to me that situations like Rawanda are just more examples of how gov'ts can
kill more people and more efficiently than any single mass murderer.

And speaking of the sidelines, what, exactly, are YOU doing about it?

> You can't count up human lives and say ``this entity is more evil than
> this entity.''  It doesn't work that way.  People are people, regardless,
> and usually don't deserve that kind of premature termination.

Why on Earth can't you can't up the lives?  It's pretty easy.  Hitler was
worse than Manson because he killed millions while Manson was only able to
kill, what, less than a dozen?  None of their victims deserved to die.  But
if Hitler hadn't been able to take control of the German gov't, fewer people
would have been killed (unless some other crazy got the gov't).

> As for the running dictionary flame, by all means, piss on.  Perhaps
                                                     ^^^^^^^
> later, when you mature a little, discussion can get back to more
                  ^^^^^^
> meaningful topics.

A classic case of pot & kettle syndrome.

It is, however, difficult to argue that "anarchy" is better than gov't when
someone's definition of "anarchy" is not "no government".

rgds-- TA  (tallard@frb.gov)
I don't speak for the Federal Reserve Board, it doesn't speak for me.
pgp fingerprint: 10 49 F5 24 F1 D9 A7 D6  DE 14 25 C8 C0 E2 57 9D

Tom Allard wrote:
<deleted>
> I didn't start this discussion.  But the question remains... are we better
> with or without governments.  

IMHO about the only reason we need govts is to act as an arbitrator, or
as a TTP.  

<deleted>
> rgds-- TA  (tallard@frb.gov)
> I don't speak for the Federal Reserve Board, it doesn't speak for me.
> pgp fingerprint: 10 49 F5 24 F1 D9 A7 D6  DE 14 25 C8 C0 E2 57 9D

Regards,
JEH

On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 01:22:40PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> At 11:07 AM -0800 5/14/97, Tom Allard wrote:
> 
> >How pedantic.  Webster's New World Dictionary (also reputable, I might add),
> >has THIS to say about "Anarchy":
> >
> >  anarchy n. [Gr. an- without + archos, leader] 1. the absence of government
> >  2. political disorder and violence 3. disorder; confusion
> >
> >Note the etymology.  Taken to its roots, the word simply means "no leader".
> 
> Tom is exactly right. Citing dictionary definitions without proper
> context--and the context of "anarchy" and "anarcho-capitalism" on this of
> _all_ lists is quite important--is just plain pedantry. 

And in the context of Rwanda the meaning is clear, as well.  I didn't 
start this pointless pedantic thread about the meaning of the word 
"anarchy", Tim -- you did.  I used the word in a perfectly 
meaningful, standard way in a context in which that meaning was 
completely appropriate.  Period.

[...]

> The meaning of anarchy, and how it differs from chaos and random killings,
> has been discussed many times. David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom"
> is a good book to start with.
> Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" also
> discusses how lawlessness is not at all a necessary part of "no rulers"
> (Hint: international trade generally involves "no ruler," given that
> neither the United Nations nor the World Court have much power over such
> things, and yet international trade has worked for several centuries, and
> arguably for millenia, with good success.)

I read the chapters of MoF from Friedman's web site.  I'm sure the 
rest of the book would be interesting, but it is really something for 
the faithful.  I'll keep an eye out for Benson's book, but I suspect 
it too will be something for the faithful.

Saying that anarchy is a pervasive part of real life is disingenuous, 
at best -- government is a pervasive part of real life as well.  You 
choose the books you read, the restaurants, etc, but these things all 
exist in a pervasive net of contracts enforced, ultimately, by the 
government. 

You rail about the actions of Feinstein, Goodlatte, etc, attacking your 
freedoms, but conveniently forget the web laws that protect your 
benefactor.  As they say, integrity is everything -- once you can 
fake that you've got it made.

> As for Kent Crispin's remark that he chooses not to use the "esoteric"
> definition of anarchy that the anarchist community, and economists
> (actually), and others use, and prefers his "Toastmaster's Club" hoary
> recitation of a simple dictionary definition, well, this is why I'm
> becoming convinced that "Kent Crispin" is just a new identity David
> Sternlight has adopted.

How remarkably clever of you.  A fine example of the insight for 
which you are so renown.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html